Quote :

"show where i've EVER said "Clinton did it""

still waiting...

Quote :

"Shit, I've got so many points from owning you that the shit passed infinity and reset back to zero again"

and what are you gonna do with those "points?" cash them in for a round trip ticket to loserland?

11/13/2007 1:24:28 PM

Stop posting in this thread if you don't care to have any sort of debate, intelligent or otherwise.

I destroyed you with the last post. If the best you can do is some elementary trolling, then log out now.

11/13/2007 1:30:54 PM

Quote :

"and what are you gonna do with those "points?" cash them in for a round trip ticket to loserland?"

That is some fucking fantastic material right there.

11/13/2007 1:31:35 PM

Quote :

"essentially make TSB about 90% liberal"

Nahh i do not think TSB is 90% liberal. Just 90% people have some common sense
and can think of their own opinions independent of whatever party is vomiting up
pro-(insert policy) propaganda.

Quote :

"it's just that while the repubs have been in power and pissing our tax dollars into the sand, there has been more news to talk about that has an anti GOP slant."

Exactly i remember when Clinton was president it was
Bill fucked up this
Bill wasting money on [xxx] program
Bill getting head in the white house
blah blah blah partisan hack vomit everywhere.

then when republicans get a candidate into the WH they can not seem to stomach any criticism without getting defensive
they even use 9/11 to claim anyone who disagrees with current gov't policy must be a terrorist or unpatriotic.
Regardless if the war was justified or not, i think people inquiring into misinformation or potential
deceit by the leaders of our country is slightly more legitimate reasons to bitch than the president receiving oral pleasure.

11/13/2007 1:32:51 PM

i'm not a republican

try to stay with us HUR

Quote :

"Nahh i do not think TSB is 90% liberal. Just 90% people have some common sense"

i stand corrected...TSB is 90% elitists "my shit doesnt stink" liberal...my mistake

11/13/2007 1:33:38 PM

Yea, we know, you aren't anything. Moving right along.

11/13/2007 1:34:30 PM

i realize i'm not anything

you actually think you're something special

which provides countless laughs for the rest of TWW

11/13/2007 1:35:28 PM

I do not believe i made an assertion that you were

11/13/2007 1:56:39 PM

The descent from my "relevant" post a few pages back to pathetic name-calling and flaming is staggering...

11/13/2007 2:06:02 PM

US pulling 3,000 troops from Iraq's Diyala province

Quote :

"BAGHDAD, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is sending 3,000 soldiers home from Diyala province, the second large unit to leave Iraq as troop levels are cut after a 30,000-strong 'surge' earlier this year."

Quote :

"'Most of the (brigade) will be home by Christmas and indeed a few people have left,' Kageleiry said."

Quote :

"About 2,200 Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left western Anbar province in late September under U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to cut troop levels in Iraq. Bush poured in an extra 30,000 troops from mid-February in a bid to stop Iraq spiralling into sectarian civil war. There are around 162,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon said. U.S. and Iraqi officials say the troop 'surge', more efficient Iraqi security forces and the use of neighbourhood patrols have helped bring about sharp falls in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties in the past two months. Kageleiry said the overall number of troops in Diyala, where violence spiked when al Qaeda fighters were driven out of western Anbar province earlier this year, would not decrease. With the daily toll of suicide bombs, sectarian killings and other violence slowing, General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to pull out five of his 20 brigades in Iraq by July 2008. 'The security situation in northern Iraq has improved exponentially,' Kageleiry said. 'The ultimate goal is to transition Iraqi security forces to be able to provide security to citizens of Diyala independent of coalition forces.' Mortar and rocket attacks dropped to their lowest level in October since February 2006. In Baghdad, Iraqi military officials plan to reopen some streets and hope to end a joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad soon."

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL13727119



[Edited on November 13, 2007 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/13/2007 10:12:44 PM

on the face of it, sounds like good news.

if this whole Iraq tragedy can be turned around, have the country self-sustaining and all our troops out of there.... I would trade 8 more years of a GOP executive for that.

i just want it to end.

11/13/2007 10:26:17 PM

^^

Quote :

"Now, four years later, it may well be that this flawed strategy implemented by the Bush Adminstration will ultimately result in some semblance of stability. It will not, in my humble opinion, be the result of either great political leadership or this "surge." It will however be due to the very dedicated and courageous efforts by our military, in whom I have the upmost respect. In short, any success in Iraq achieved "post-surge" will have little real value from my perspective."

11/13/2007 11:31:52 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Rove said the president just received the best possible gift from the House's most vocal war critic, Rep. John P. Murtha, who just returned from a trip to Iraq and stated flatly: "The surge is working." "It was a remarkable moment last week when Jack Murtha, who said the war is lost, the surge won't work, comes back and says the surge is working. You know that there's real progress on the ground when the most ardent, acerbic critic of the president's policy says in essence, 'I was wrong,'"

6 months of trolling under 3 screen names and for what chance? to have your pessimistic ass proven wrong

12/4/2007 10:08:02 AM

^ Does the section agree with me that this should be a suspendable offense?

12/4/2007 5:39:24 PM

Again.... I submit ^^^

It'd be great if the surge ultimately lead to some longterm stability in Iraq. I too would be comforted to know the sacrifices by our troops have not been in vain.

However, no amount of success in Iraq will justify or excuse the complete incompetence exhibited by the Bush Administration in starting an ill-advised, tactically disastrous war based on flawed intelligence and a neo-conservative movement that is not democratic, conservative, or christian. Poor leadership cannot be undone. More mistakes have been committed than can be adequately counted. Even a shitty golfer can eventually hit a golf ball into the hole. That doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that it took him 13 shots to get there.

I am disgusted by what our country has become since September 11th, 2001. We have become a country ruled by fear. We have allowed the fear to fundamentally change what the United States of America truly stand for: free speech, habeous corpus, human rights and dignity, going to war when forced to do so, and so forth. We are losing the war on terror not because we refuse to fight. We are losing because we are becoming like our enemies.

To be fair, the Bush Administration does not bear the sole responsibility for this transformation. We the voting public allowed it. If we want it to change, we must demand it. We must demand honesty, integrity, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to be rushed off to war. We must demand our liberties BACK. We must, in short, not accept the doldrums into which our country has fallen.


In the grand scheme of things, the surge means nothing. Far bigger issues are at stake.

12/8/2007 4:17:42 PM

^ except for...in the grand scheme of things...the surge is working really well...

12/9/2007 12:11:29 PM

^ First off, the surge was a product of exploiting our military. We extended their tours, gave them shitty pay, and continued to underfund piss poor healthcare and benefits. The military sacrificed while the rest of country sat back and watched.

As to the success of the surge, nothing is going to change until we realize that the USA cannot defeat terrorism while it continues to provoke it. 15 saudi hijackers took part in 9/11. Why? We had troops in their country. Before that the US funded Saddam's war against Iran. Before that the US funded Afghanistan's (and Bin Laden's) war against the Soviets. Then there's installing the Shah in Iran in 1953 which got us a hostage situation in 1979.

Seriously, let's be honest for a freaking minute. The Middle East hates us because we're always sticking our noses where they don't belong. And why? To get their oil and a cheaper, more reliable price. And who's losing out when the US "installs" political stability to get those low prices? The average citizen in the Middle East.

12/10/2007 11:43:39 PM

I'm confused, if committing more troops for longer isn't working, then what should we be doing?

just leave? "Wow, we sure fucked up your country... bye."

12/10/2007 11:45:14 PM

Quote :

"just leave? "Wow, we sure fucked up your country... bye.""

like in Vietnam?

I mean honestly, what do we care about Iraq. We don't even care about our own people or the entire continent of Africa. I mean theres genocide going on in Darfur. This is more about saving political face for the dickheads in congress than it is any concern for those over there.

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 11:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/10/2007 11:48:09 PM

Quote :

"This is more about saving political face for the dickheads in congress than it is any concern for those over there."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E

12/11/2007 11:16:55 PM

Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq
Instead, Democrats are lost in time, Bush lowers the bar for Baghdad.

Quote :

"Iraq remains a violent place, but the trends are encouraging. U.S. and Iraqi casualties are down sharply. Fewer of the most lethal Iranian-made explosive devices are being used as roadside bombs. In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces. On the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian chasm, something similar is happening. About 70,000 local, pro-government groups, a bit like neighborhood watch groups, have formed to expose extremist militias, according to Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations. But as much as facts have changed on the ground, little seems to have changed in Washington. There are plans to withdraw some troops next year, but there is no clear picture of the endgame in Iraq. How long will troops be needed? Exactly what do we expect success to look like? Will we leave behind a permanent presence? None of the answers are any clearer than they were when the news began improving. In fact, they seem fuzzier. On the Republican side, the White House has been busy making excuses for the Iraqi government's failure to move toward national reconciliation (which is the goal of the troop surge), and it has lowered the benchmarks for success to the level of irrelevance. That translates into reduced accountability, continued dependency and an open-ended commitment. Lowering the bar for the Iraqi government sends a message that Baghdad can enjoy security paid for in American lives, and reconstruction aid paid by America's taxpayers, and ignore its responsibilities. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that 'the surge hasn't accomplished its goals.' Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle. What's needed is acknowledgment that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success [emphasis added]. So far, the Iraqis have missed just about every benchmark that Congress set early this year and Bush promised to enforce. Too often, they just don't seem to be making an effort. Those benchmarks included passing laws on sharing oil revenue, allowing more former Baath Party members into official jobs and holding provincial elections. To some degree, the positive 'bottom up' developments mitigate that failure. The Sunnis, for instance, have abandoned their political isolation and now want to participate in the government. But the Shiites' persistent resistance to letting them in makes a case for new, meaningful benchmarks, not trivial certainties such as simply passing a budget, one of the requirements the White House has set. Beyond benchmarks, the military progress has been paralleled by a less aggressive stance by Iran, creating another opening. Iran has enormous influence in Iraq, particularly in Shiite regions. More aggressive diplomacy of the kind advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group would help — even a regional conference such as the one the United States recently hosted in Annapolis, Md., to restart Middle East peace talks. If the United States has learned anything over the past few years of war, it's that apparent calm can change in an instant. (Just Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 41 people and wounded 150 at the main market in the southern Shiite city of Amarah.) The U.S. military is stretched thin and cannot maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. So now, before the surge starts to unwind, is the time to refocus the war effort and begin defining the endgame, while leaving the timetable flexible. The Iraq war, which has cost so much in U.S. lives and treasure, deserves far more than muddling through with fingers crossed. It demands a credible, long-term plan that will allow the United States to get out in a way that preserves U.S. interests in the region, not a political stalemate that forces it to stay in."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/our-view-on-war.html

On their growing list of losses, it looks like the Democrats can add USA Today.

12/13/2007 2:08:20 AM

I haven't been following this thread, but by what metric are people using to determine it's a success?

I've seen several people say this, but none of them have given a reason why they believe this.

12/13/2007 3:50:14 AM

^

Quote :

"And is it possible for you to just make a post without asking a question?"

hooksaw

12/13/2007 4:14:27 AM

If you're trying to make a point in your tirade against question-asking, I don't get what it is.

(see a post without a question)

12/13/2007 4:22:33 AM

^ Um. . .this--again:

Quote :

"And is it possible for you to just make a post without asking a question?"

Quote :

"Do you have some illness that prevents you from being able to grasp meaning from context? Just wondering."

hooksaw

12/13/2007 4:28:50 AM

Quote :

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. "

- Albert Einstein

Quote :

" To be on a quest is nothing more or less than to become an asker of questions."

- SAM KEEN

Quote :

" Judge others by their questions rather than by their answers."

-VOLTAIRE

Quote :

"Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton asked why. "

-Bernard Baruch

Quote :

"Be curious always! For knowledge will not acquire you; you must acquire it. "

-Sudie Back




[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 4:51 AM. Reason : ]

12/13/2007 4:44:44 AM

^ Fascinating[/sarcasm]. Except that your questioning appears to be more of a rhetorical device--or simply a self-defense method--than any grand search for knowledge.

12/13/2007 4:56:04 AM

Quote :

"than any grand search for knowledge."

Hahahah....hahahahahaha...hah



SEE I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG WITH THE STATEMENTS I COPIED AND PASTED AND BOLDED BEFORE

12/13/2007 8:15:20 AM

Quote :

"Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. S"

yeah its called oppression. The insurgency and "sectarian" dissenters are still there but they have one thing on their side much like the American Revolutionaries did during the 1770's. TIME. We can keep winning the battle like in Vietnam or the British did during the American Revolution. However, we will not necessarily win the war unless we plan on occupying Iraq for the indefinite future.

All you have to do is look around the neighborhood to realize that these people will keep fighting each other until Armageddon.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:01 AM. Reason : a]

12/13/2007 10:00:34 AM

Susan Lenfestey: Sure, OK, the surge is working; we concede*
* On that point only (and it's really no surprise). It doesn't validate the entire enterprise.

Quote :

"Columnist Clifford May recently suggested that those of us who doubted that the surge would work should now concede graciously that we were wrong (Star Tribune, Dec. 7). Fair enough. We're all exhausted from the divisiveness of this war, so in the holiday spirit -- and with my fingers crossed – I'll take a break from the rancor and say what he wants to hear: The Surge is Working [emphasis added]."

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/12642591.html

Is The Surge Working?
By Lt. Gen. Robert Springer
Posted: Dec. 20 1:47 p.m.

Quote :

"It is starting to look like 2007 has been a turnaround year for the conflict in Iraq. Early in the year, there was much criticism of the proposed surge and the new tactics – counterinsurgency – which Gen. David Petraeus was pursuing. In fairness, we must note that we have been late getting to these military successes that we are now starting to see in Iraq [emphasis added]. We should all take comfort in the fact that Iraq is not the only thing politicians, pundits and the media are highlighting these days. While we are still suffering American and coalition casualties, the numbers are down from earlier years, even though we have tens of thousands of more troops in the fray. Permit me to cite some statistics to demonstrate why some critics of the war are currently less vocal. When considering all types of attacks against the Iraqi government and its infrastructure, bombs found or exploded, small arms incidents and mortar, rocket and surface-to-air missile attacks, the number of total attacks weekly has been halved since December 2006. Civilian deaths have dropped by more than 70 percent."

Quote :

"Another stunning statistic is the number of arms caches found. In all of 2004, there were 1,712 such findings. So far this year, there have been more than 6,200. Obviously, this takes weapons away from the insurgents and malcontents throughout Iraq. A strong case might be made that the counterinsurgency tactics and the surge that supports these efforts are working. While it is clearly too early to be certain if the Iraqi government with the coalition forces will maintain the momentum into the new year, there are a few reasons why there is room for cautious optimism. First, the counterinsurgency tactics have winning the hearts and minds of the citizenry as an absolute. As a consequence, our troops are getting more and better intelligence from the local folks, which in turn leads to finding the insurgents, the arms cache, the safe houses, etc. Second, it is widely perceived that al-Quaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand. The senseless and ruthless killing of Iraqi citizens and destruction of their property has many Iraqis, including religious leaders, looking to Gen. Petraeus’ forces as their hope for the future. Again, better intelligence is the byproduct."

Quote :

"There are some strong indicators that the future is looking a little brighter. Earlier this month, the nation's oil output exceeded pre-2003 production levels. This week, the Iraqis launched their first oil tanker in 27 years. There are two more tankers coming soon, which will dramatically improve their ability to export their oil. And the need to export this money maker is critical to the rebuilding of this devastated nation."

Quote :

"If you have read this far, you may think that I see the glass more than half full. Let me say that I am cautiously optimistic, even though there is ample room for setbacks and I am certain there will be some. My real message here is that the bleak assessment of Iraqi success last Christmas does not comport with the situation on the ground in Iraq this Christmas. Among our many Christmas blessings, we should include this blessing as well."

http://www.wral.com/news/blogpost/2201300/

12/21/2007 1:04:03 PM

the first thing I think when I see a hooksaw post is...

I'm not reading that

12/21/2007 1:05:38 PM

^ So you have no retort--as usual.

12/21/2007 1:08:59 PM

retort to WHAT?

every crazy shit article you happen to come across?

i mean, what are you thinking? do you think we're going to read everything you find interesting?

pick and choose what pieces of information you choose to throw our way

then maybe you might get an idea across

12/21/2007 1:10:46 PM

Hooksaw is the RSS feed I never wanted.

12/21/2007 1:12:10 PM

^^ FYI: Lt. Gen. Robert Springer's opinion >> Some Internet loudmouth's opinion

12/21/2007 1:18:14 PM

again, due to overwhelming volume

could not care less

12/21/2007 1:20:05 PM

Quote :

"^ So you have no retort--as usual. "

12/21/2007 1:21:51 PM

why don't you fucking listen?

it's not that I just don't care, it's that you scream so much and act like such a fucking baby when people don't pay attention to you that it's hard to even want to care a tiny little bit

12/21/2007 1:25:15 PM

I realize I'm just a voice in the wilderness on this thread, but the surge is working because the administration finally adopted a military / diplomatic model that works. It is the same model (then) LTG Petraeus was using in Mosul in 03-04 and the same model that Rumsfeld resisted so vigorously for so long based on his own ignorance and hubris.

The surge is working, thankfully, but it would never been necessary in the first place if not for gross incompetence on the part of the executive branch of the United States government (not to mention the spinal absence on the part of the Legislative Branch).

12/21/2007 1:45:35 PM

^ Well, I find it damned peculiar that for a long time the Democrats in Congress loudly proclaimed that we didn't have enough "troops" in Iraq. But when the Bush administration moved to increase "troop" levels there--the "surge"--many of those same Democrats didn't like that either.

12/21/2007 2:02:36 PM

I'm not arguing for the Democrats. All the generals said we needed more troops in Iraq from the beginning. Its like Bush is taking credit for being smart enough to do what everyone who knew what they were talking about told him to do in the first place.

12/21/2007 2:04:43 PM

In any event, the question posed in this thread's title has been answered. And the answer is a resounding "Yes."

BTW, this is quite evident in the Democrats' shift in focus from Iraq to the economy:

Howard Dean: Economy to Be a Big Issue

Quote :

"The Iraq war will remain a big issue across the country, but the economy will overtake it over the next few months as the voters' top concern, says Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/12/20/howard-dean-economy-to-be-a-big-issue.html

12/21/2007 2:26:39 PM

Quote :

"^ Well, I find it damned peculiar that for a long time the Democrats in Congress loudly proclaimed that we didn't have enough "troops" in Iraq. But when the Bush administration moved to increase "troop" levels there--the "surge"--many of those same Democrats didn't like that either. "

You mean, Democrats like Colin Powell and Republicans like Harry Reid?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16265114/

12/21/2007 2:54:47 PM

^wow

12/21/2007 2:56:52 PM

I know right? Hooksaw fucked up again.

12/21/2007 9:57:33 PM

dont be crazy talkin.

yall know Powell's nothin but a yassir nossir uncle tom

12/22/2007 12:15:30 AM

Undoubtably, if the "surge" is not working, the American public will be the last to know. The Bush administration, to their credit know that the American public has an extremely short memory and regard all attempts at accountability as partisan politics.

Would an extra 20k troops in Hanoi have won us Vietnam?

[Edited on December 22, 2007 at 12:53 AM. Reason : .]

12/22/2007 12:47:33 AM

unless we are doing something else behind the scenes to "fix" Iraq, get the economy rolling, and solve the internal sociological diffrences between the various groups then the surge if futile. Once the surge ends shit will go back to exactly the way it was until some powerful dictator comes to power who can control those camel jockeys.

Saying the surge is working is like the LAPD saying that sending an extra 100 cops to patrol the ghetto is working to eliminate gang violence and drug dealing or NC Highway patrol launching one of their "slow down" campaigns and expecting everyone to stop speeding.

Quote :

"BTW, this is quite evident in the Democrats' shift in focus from Iraq to the economy"

haha you can not be serious, can you?? I care more about my portfolio holding strong, having a job in 5 years, and having a good economy then a bunch of dune coons blowing each others head up in Iraq. Realistically the Iraq war is causing some of the economic strain. Wars cost money. Gotta pay the troops, pay for reconstructions of Iraq, pay for secondary services to maintain/supply the troops, the war in Iraq has raised demand for gas thus increasing prices indirectly, and the war in Iraq has taken away man power especially in the case of the National Reserve abroad who would otherwise be acting in some more productive fashion for our domestic industry.

[Edited on December 22, 2007 at 2:30 AM. Reason : l]

12/22/2007 2:26:35 AM

Do we really need these racial slurs in the soap box? Do you realize that your choice to use this language does nothing but hurt your position?

12/22/2007 8:01:48 PM

Quote :

"Saying the surge is working is like the LAPD saying that sending an extra 100 cops to patrol the ghetto is working to eliminate gang violence and drug dealing or NC Highway patrol launching one of their "slow down" campaigns and expecting everyone to stop speeding."

You are comparing apples and oranges by making these statements. The goal of the 100 cop increase would be to momentarily stop the gang violence so that communities could train themselves and ultimately take control of their neighborhoods. This would only work if the citizens had a desire to change the situation. I believe that in Iraq, the majority of citizens have embraced the thought of a Non Sadaam Regime.

The US wants democracy in Iraq (all of us should regardless of political beliefs, it would be very beneficial for us all). The troop increase has significantly lowered violence. This essentially tells us the general number of Iraqi troops needed to stabilize their own country.

As of right now, we should continue to hunt the few insurgents that are left. Iraq needs to secure its boarders better. This should be their primary focus. Once power is transferred to their government, Illegals (pretty much the same situation that we have) will influx into the new democracy. The will do this for one of two reasons: either to escape their country and live in freedom, or to invade and take it over! Either way, the boarders must be much more secured than ours if the government has a chance to succeed long term.

Once they have enough police trained, with the appropriate infastructure and communication in place, and the boarders and elected government are in place, the US can then leave. This may be years down the road, or it could be a few months....who knows. This is a major step in the right direction for Iraq.

12/22/2007 9:17:59 PM